AppleZulu

About

Username
AppleZulu
Joined
Visits
240
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
7,748
Badges
2
Posts
2,181

Reactions

5.1KLike313Informative

  • 'Verifiably untrustworthy' Epic Games iOS app store plans in EU killed by Apple

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    avon b7 said:
    This doesn't look good for Apple on the face of it.

    Apple has the last word on 'trust'?

    I can't see that going down well in the EU. 

    I suppose Epic will accuse Apple of discrimination. 

    We'll see. 

    If the iOS platform is to maintain integrity, yes. Epic has a solid history of bad credit. If the EU's intent is to strip Apple of all control of its own platform and to force them to let thieves and child predators set up shop there, then it may come to a point where Apple would be better off withdrawing from that market, and EU can make its own phones. 
    tmayjas99williamlondon9secondkox2killroyolsmobirdpscooter63spock1234watto_cobra

  • A new call feature on X is on by default, and you should probably turn it off

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    darren mccoy said:
    Why does this site hate X so much?
    Probably because it used to be a cesspool, but after the Musk buyout it got worse.
    ForumPostkurai_kageVictorMortimerwatto_cobra

  • Apple to pay $14.4M to settle Canadian 'Batterygate' lawsuit

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    For those who have forgotten, the "throttling" in question was iOS software that -for phones with an old, degraded battery- would slow down intensive, peak energy demand operations, in order to spread out that energy demand over additional seconds, so that the weakened battery's output could still power the complete operation. The alternative without this adaption would be a system crash, freezing up the app or even shutting down the phone. Old batteries lose capacity. It's physics. 

    The claim that this was planned obsolescence, intended to push iPhone customers to buy a new phone, is erroneous. Which would more quickly force a decision on replacement: a phone that slows down, or a phone that crashes? Slow is annoying. Crashing is non-functional. Throttling would actually delay customers' decisions to go buy a new phone, yet this is the thing Apple is forced to pay out for. 
    williamlondonauxiowatto_cobrajony0

  • European Union smacks Apple with $2 billion fine over music streaming

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    avon b7 said:
    This is part of what the EU had to say:

    "Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU'). These anti-steering provisions are neither necessary nor proportionate for the protection of Apple's commercial interests in relation to the App Store on Apple's smart mobile devices and negatively affect the interests of iOS users, who cannot make informed and effective decisions on where and how to purchase music streaming subscriptions for use on their device.

    Apple's conduct, which lasted for almost ten years, may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.

    ... "

    Apple makes no reference to its anti-competitive behaviour in its statement and instead tries to put the spotlight on Spotify, its European nature and music streaming.

    That’s because it’s absurd for the company that holds more than half the market to accuse another company that has a much smaller market share of “anti-competitive behavior” in that market. It becomes doubly absurd when you consider that much of that market wouldn’t even exist without the mobile platform created by Apple and then copied by its competitors. 

    When Spotify launched in 2006, streaming music was limited primarily to stationary, plugged-in computers. There were mp3 players and iPods that made downloaded music portable, but Apple had to invent the iPhone, push phone companies into broadband, and then introduce the App Store for Spotify to become relevant. Samsung, Google and others followed, expanding Spotify’s opportunities for riding the broadband mobile platform wave. 

    Spotify then used that platform to disrupt the purchased digital music market, and Apple supplanted iTunes with Apple Music in response. 

    As with Epic, Spotify just wants a free ride. That’s what this is all about. 

    Honestly, when you add to this the fact that Spotify also notoriously pays artists significantly less for their content than Apple, they come off as pretty parasitic, when you think about it. 
    foregoneconclusionjas99darelrextmayradarthekatsphericJanNLauxioroundaboutnowdarbus69

  • Reports are spreading about a very specific Apple Vision Pro front glass crack

    AppleZuluAppleZulu
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    foregoneconclusion said:
    LOL…this web site was recommending that people use cases that weren’t designed for the AVP to save some money. Whoops. 
    We still are. The cases cited here are using Apple's case.
    The links cited in the article don't say that. The first one says "packed it away" but makes no mention of what case was used. The second one specifically says that they didn't have a case. The third one is a repeat of the first link...same title, same photo. So none of the links used have any information regarding Apple's case.

    In addition, the person who posted in the first link is theorizing that the glass simply breaks by itself "with no outside force". He wasn't charging it in whatever he "packed it away" in. The person who posted in the second link (who didn't use a case) says that they can't remember if they had covered the glass visor when they charged it. 
    You're obviously welcome to believe what you want, but everybody involved in those posts have other Reddit posts discussing what they own as it pertains to AVP, have other comments in other threads discussing it, and we have more accounts from other users since saying the same thing.
    If you have additional information, shouldn’t that warrant an update to the coverage to spell it out? If a perceptive reader points out that the currently  cited source information doesn’t support the drawn conclusions, it seems odd to drop in the comments just to to say ‘yeah, but we have other information (that isn’t in the article and not specifically shared here) that says we’re right and you’re wrong.’

    Maybe you’re on to a big scoop, but at this moment with the information as presented, it has all the appearance of being out over your skis. 
    foregoneconclusion9secondkox2williamlondon